HN user
You may well be describing me, as a Seattle resident with a blue coat and a chocolate lab who currently has an upset stomach and is in need of many walks recently. We're working on the food/diet part, but your comment inspired me to buy a reflective arm band for myself. His harness is already a bit reflective. Anyway, thought it was funny and thanks for the sanity check/advice.
I am not sure the GP caught the article's statement that the regulatory cap on SAF is 50%, and that as a result this is arguably the most aggressive test UA could have run.
Here is a very recent (likely put out due to this as it's not a full opinion) ruling on the topic: https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/27/facebook-twitter-a...
"Freedom Watch's First Amendment claim fails because it does not adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment 'prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,'" the court wrote, citing a previous opinion issued by the D.C. Court of Appeals. The judges went on to say that "'a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.'"
In fact the impact of the 1st is substantially greater, because of the energy required for takeoff.
It's a joke! :)
That is correct.
Lol, this was exactly who I thought it would be.
The author does address this. "Some people used to argue that buybacks were a more tax-efficient means of distributing money to shareholders than dividends. But that has not been the case since 2003, when the tax rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends were made the same."